I have heard the request to “orbit” left or right at least three times in different places. I took that to mean I should literally orbit—that is, circle at a standard rate at that location. And no one objects. Looking at more detailed charts after the fact, i’ve seen that that request happened at the place where there’s a published hold. I’m typically using SkyDemon which doesn’t show the locations of hold (at least in the view I have). ATC seemed to have no problem with that, but have I been doing it wrong? Is “orbit” a synonym for “fly the hold”?
This is at major airports with inbound traffic being spaced.
No. Hold is hold. Orbit is orbit.
Hold is IFR. Orbit is VFR. If there is any wind, it is not possible to orbit at standard rate and remain in the same location.
Thanks, then they told me to orbit because I was VFR. With GPS wind correction is easy.
Would it be wrong in such a case to fly the hold (for practice)?
It’s not wrong if you ask and they say yes ;)
boscomantico wrote:
Hold is IFR. Orbit is VFR.
Zurich has VFR holdings, although they are not defined the same way as IFR.
So Zurich expects you to orbit at the little circles shown?
Only if you get “Hold at W2” from ATC. But you are expected to fly the hold, not to orbit.
Ireland also uses VFR holds at certain points which are not orbits.
It’s ambiguous to be asked to “orbit” at a published hold so I’d clarify that.
James_Chan wrote:
It’s ambiguous to be asked to “orbit” at a published hold so I’d clarify that.
How is it ambiguous? ATC says orbit, you orbit. If they want you to fly a VFR hold (the idea of which I find odd), then they tell you to do that. If you are VFR you don’t know anything about IFR holds (or can’t be assumed to know).
Never been told to orbit anything in Sweden, or anywhere else. You are told to fly a certain VFR holding, like these ones at ESMS (WEST, EAST):
I was told once in Greece to hold over a village (not orbit), that was not published anywhere, but I did it anyway since I know the area very well.
